1
$\begingroup$

I want to prove the following statement:

Let $S_1, S_2$ be path-connected surfaces (i.e. 2-dimensional smooth submanifolds) in $\mathbb R^3$ equipped with the respective intrinsic metrics $d_1, d_2$ (i.e. the distance between $x,y$ is the length of the shortest path connecting them). Show that for a smooth map $f: S_1 \to S_2$ is equivalent:
$1)$ $f$ is an isometry, that is $d_2(f(x),f(y)) = d_1(x,y)$ for each $x,y \in S_1$
$2)$ For each $x\in S_1$ the differential $df_x: T_xS_1 \to T_{f(x)}S_2$ is a linear isometry with respect to the first fundamental form.

Attempt:
"=>": Let $x\in S_1$. We need to show $\forall v \in T_xS_1: \lVert df_x(v)\rVert = \lVert v \rVert.$ I thought about this for a while, but I don't know how I can relate that to what's given. I know that for $c:(-\varepsilon, \varepsilon)\to S_1, c(0) = x, c'(0) = v$ we have $df_x(v) = (f \circ c)'(0)$. Any help appreciated!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you familiar with the connection between the metric and the covariant basis of the tangent plane? $\endgroup$ – uniquesolution Jun 7 '18 at 18:50
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by covariant basis of the tangent plane? $\endgroup$ – Staki42 Jun 7 '18 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ Staki42: maybe @uniquesolution is talking of the reciprocal basis $\partial^1, \partial^2$ with $\partial^k=g^{ks}\partial_s$ $\endgroup$ – janmarqz Jun 7 '18 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I'm pretty sure I am unfamiliar with that concept and notation. $\endgroup$ – Staki42 Jun 7 '18 at 20:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are the surfaces assumed to be closed, or complete or some such? Otherwise it is not true (think about including the plane with a ball removed into the full plane). $\endgroup$ – Max Jun 10 '18 at 20:06
0
$\begingroup$

I think I found a proof:
$"\Rightarrow"$: Let $x\in S_1, v \in T_xS_1$ and let $c: (-\epsilon, \epsilon) \to S_1$ be a curve such that $c(0) = x, c'(0) = v$. Now we have for each $\delta >0$ s.t. $[-\delta, \delta] \subseteq (-\epsilon, \epsilon):$ $$l(c|_{[-\delta, \delta]}) = l(f\circ c|_{[\delta, \delta]}) \implies \int_{-\delta} ^\delta \lVert c'(t)\rVert dt = \int_{-\delta}^\delta \lVert (f \circ c)'(t)\rVert dt $$ since our assumption implies that the length of curves is preserved under isometries. Now we want to show $\lVert df_x(v) \rVert = \lVert (f\circ c)'(0) \rVert = \lVert c'(0)\rVert = \lVert v \rVert$. Assume not, WLOG $\lVert (f\circ c)'(0) \rVert < \lVert c'(0)\rVert$. By continuity, there exists $\delta > 0$ s.t. $$\forall t\in (-\delta, \delta): \quad g(t) := \lVert c'(t) \rVert - \lVert (f \circ c)'(t)\rVert > 0.$$ Integrating both sides from $-\delta$ to $\delta$ for $\delta$ small enough this is a contradiction to $(1)$. Hence our assumption was wrong and $\lVert df_x(v) \rVert = \lVert v \rVert$.
$"\Leftarrow"$: Assume $f$ is not an isometry. Then there exists a smooth curve $c:(-\epsilon, \epsilon)\to S_1$ with $l(c) \neq l(f \circ c)$. But that means $\exists t_0$ s.t. $\lVert c'(t_0) \rVert \neq \lVert (f\circ c)'(t_0) \rVert$.
Now let $\gamma:(-\epsilon, \epsilon) \to S_1, t\mapsto \gamma(t) := c(t-t_0)$ and define $v:= \gamma'(0) = c'(t_0)$.
Now $$\lVert v \rVert = \lVert c'(t_0) \rVert \neq \lVert (f\circ c)'(t_0) \rVert = \lVert df_{c(t_0)}(v) \rVert ,$$so $df_{c(t_0)}$ is not an isometry.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.